>>>>> "Greg" == Greg McGary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> A reliable way to catch this problem is to include the relevant
>> system headers before mentioning the function. This is needed
>> anyway for C99 conformance, so the change should be made to
>> autoconf regardless of what is decided for bounded-pointers
>> support.
Greg> I agree that this is the correct way to go in principle, and it
Greg> might be the best accommodation that I can get from Alexandre.
Greg> 8^) How likely is it that such C99 changes will make it into
Greg> autoconf, and when?
I'd say we are going to try, but since some day RSN we should start
beta testing Autoconf, IMHO, we should not try too hard.
The proposal for AC_CHECK_FUNCTION is probably the best one (unless we
manage to have a compatible change of AC_CHECK_FUNC), it would be
something like the change I suggested (without the AC_CHECK_DECL part
methinks). Implementing AC_CHECK_FUNC in terms of AC_CHECK_FUNCTION
is easy, good news for autoupdate too.
Greg> OK. I agree. In general it will be a package's maintainer(s)
Greg> who are the first users of BPs on that package. BPs could be a
Greg> nice inducement to upgrade configure scripts for C99.
The C99 is an issue we will have to address, but personally I don't
see any hurry. Autoconf is not even C90!
Akim
